Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soyjak.party
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Soyjak.party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are not enough independent, reliable, significant sources to count for notability. As I expect this AfD will attract attention, here is a reminder: to count for notability per WP:GNG, a source needs to be all three of a) reliable (a source that can be trusted to be reliable for facts, like an established news organization or scholarly article) b) independent (not affliated with the subject of the article) and c) significant (giving an amount of coverage of the subject substantial enough where no original research is required to extract the meaning, e.g. several hundred words in length in its content about the subject). If a source fails one of these, it does not count towards GNG.
There is 1 piece of coverage that is firmly sigcov, a lengthy article from Pirate Wires. The RSN RFC on Pirate Wires held it to be between marginally reliable/generally unreliable, which makes its usage as the only clearly sigcov source, poor. The article has resultingly been plastered in "better source needed" tags, a decision I am not sure I agree with, but it is the status quo. All other sources are too short to count towards the GNG, as they lack significant coverage, or are entirely related to 1 event, the 4chan hack, and devote limited coverage to the website. The ADL source has less than a paragraph on them. The Daily Dot piece is not sigcov, and is also marginally reliable. All the hack sources (besides PW) are from a one day period, which fails WP:LASTING.
It is untenable to have an article where the entire thing is plastered in a "better source needed" tag, and we do not have any other sigcov sources, outside of coverage of 1 event, which is already covered on another article (4chan) and was covered for one day. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep There's a three reliable sources for example Gizmodo and Wired. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 02:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: it would be helpful if you stated why you think each source doesn't meet the requirements GNG. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 02:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Darth Stabro Those sources are each from a single day.
- 1 - not sigcov about website
- 2 - not reliable, from April 15, 2025
- 3 - not sigcov, from April 15, 2025, simply says they hacked 4chan with little else
- 4 - Pirate Wires, not RS
- 5 - not reliable, not sigcov about website
- 6 - Not sigcov about website, from April 15, 2025, recycling wired source
- 7 - from April 15, 2025, this one has marginally better coverage
- 8 - from April 15, 2025, not sigcov about website, simply says they hacked 4chan
- 9 - from April 15, 2025, not sigcov about website, simply says they hacked 4chan
- 10 - from April 15, 2025, not sigcov about website, simply says they hacked 4chan
- 7 is arguably sigcov, but barely, but they are all from the same day, about 1 thing. This fails WP:LASTING. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment: This DR is gonna get canvassed as soon as someone posts about it at Soyjak--Trade (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Probably. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'll add this to my watchlist for in case this comes anywhere close to the MKUCR AfD AssumeGoodWraith (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Strong delete per all the points made in the nomination. The fact that 39% (9/23) of the inline citations in the article have the "better source needed" tag shows a lack of WP:GNG as none of these sources are sufficient enough to use as references. Even though there are a few articles from strong sources (Ars Technica, Gizmodo, Wired), none of them are actually about soyjak, and are instead about a single event that is closer related to 4chan, with soyjak being just a small mention. There are other sources, such as the one from Cryptonews, that do have slightly more coverage, however the coverage is still very limited and none of those are particularly reliable (and even if they were, there still is not enough WP:SIGCOV in these). As stated by the nomination, there is one source that clearly has WP:SIGCOV, and that is the one from Pirates Wire. However, regardless of whether or not Pirates Wire is reliable, no matter what, one source falls far too short of proving WP:GNG. – LuniZunie(talk) 04:06, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, and Internet. aaronneallucas (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Sources seem credible and reliable, & article seems notable enough to me. While some sources only touch on the imageboard briefly, i still think they're fair enough. Keep PLMandarynka (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- seems important tho Franb01ser (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: There are not many sources and the same ones are repeated over and over again. Probably not notable Takeonmetakeonme (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- delete. here's a source analysis of all the sources in the article. one strike and you're out:
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 mentioned very briefly twice. 87 words of coverage, generously. |
✘ No | |||
news aggregate; actual source here. apparently, their day-to-day operations are powered by AI and Web3, so. |
mentioned only in context of hacking 4chan |
✘ No | ||
| mentioned only in context of hacking 4chan |
✘ No | |||
WP:PIRATEWIRES. admits in it's preface that A lot of what I’ve written here could even be wrongand says to Take everything with a grain of salt. |
✘ No | |||
| barely written about, 63 words. |
✘ No | |||
| mentioned only in context of hacking 4chan |
✘ No | |||
~ There is no consensus on whether Gizmodo is generally reliable for controversial statements.also, they spell it as "soyjack". |
mentioned only in context of hacking 4chan |
✘ No | ||
| mentioned only in context of hacking 4chan |
✘ No | |||
| not even mentioned |
✘ No | |||
| mentioned only in context of hacking 4chan |
✘ No | |||
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
there is no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources.
below is an analysis of 4 more sources i found that are not in the article. none of them have significant coverage:
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 62 words of coverage |
✘ No | |||
| mentioned only in context of hacking 4chan |
✘ No | |||
| mentioned only in context of hacking 4chan |
✘ No | |||
| name-dropped once |
✘ No | |||
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
ltbdl (scan) 07:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- also, wikipedia should not have this article for the same reasons you-know-who doesn't have an article: it's a magnet for harassment. ltbdl (squeeze) 07:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with your table, generally, but with regard to your last point I don't think that's the same deal. By that logic we shouldn't have an article on Kiwi Farms, either. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Strong Keep I have found a new source: https://www.gazeta.ru/tech/news/2025/04/16/25570406.shtml?utm_auth=false This source appears to be reliable and has better sigcov than any source in the article other than PW. Soyjak.party (SJP) also has a MediaWiki instance which has archived posts from SJP which contain information such as plans for internet raids and announcements of events like the 4chan hack. Most information in the wiki that concerns things directly related to SJP such as raids conducted by its users and details about the history of SJP's ownership are reliable and cite archived posts from the site, but the majority of its other content is absolutely not reliable and the entire wiki is obviously WP:USERG. The Russian Wikipedia which had this page (ru:soyjak.party) before the English Wikipedia has a few other sources listed that aren't in the English version.ItsReallyAlex [they/them] • [talk] 17:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)- That source is also from the same one day period and does not fulfill lasting or cover the website in meaningful detail. It recycles all the websites we mention above (explicitly mentioning that...) and is again just about 4chan being hacked. Its coverage is not any better than any of the English language sources.
- And as for the rest of that post: so what? That doesn't matter for notability at all. We can't use the wiki, user generated sources are not reliable even if they cite "archived posts". Ruwiki has rather low standards for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- I too am confused about the relevance of their wiki. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- There's also a Brazilian reliable sources like this: https://www.poder360.com.br/poder-tech/4chan-enfrenta-ataque-cibernetico-e-tem-dados-vazados/ and https://g1.globo.com/tecnologia/noticia/2025/04/16/como-suposto-ataque-virtual-pode-expor-administradores-de-rede-social-extremista.ghtml VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 22:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Again, same issue, they are from one day, and do not give sigcov about the website, but are about an event related to 4chan, which we already cover. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per the well-reasoned nom, agree with the source assessment by ltbdl. Any reliable coverage approaching significance appears to be incidental to the 4chan hack, and so fails WP:INHERITWEB. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. the talk page is also a magnet for trolls (~4 ANI threads in ~15 days). The page would also have 2x less words if the Pirate Wire article was removed. ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: A word of warning that members associated with soyjak.party have attempted to dox me and other users they see as opposing their agenda for the article. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. I have been of the mind lately that this article probably should've never existed to begin with, and given the state of the sourcing I think deletion is sensible. Athanelar (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: The only sources that talk about soyjak.party either talk about the 4chan hack or the Antioch shooting, see WP:INHERITWEB. Laura240406 (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- Strong delete per all of the above; the creator of the article and all significant editors were POV-pushing trolls from the website, and we shouldn’t be giving them a platform ~2026-97819 (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- Strong delete. There is a very good reason why there is barely any reliable coverage for soyjak.party, and part of the reason is because the users (including administrators) on the site have been involved, and even atrributed, to harassment of individuals and communities, most prominently queer/LGBTQ individuals/communities, who have simply mentioned the site by name. Their entire tactic is to coerce people into silence, and still continue with their usual harassment campaigns against people and promote their agendas, causing huge disruption across different sites online. I straight up think this should absolutely be given the who-shall-not-be-named treatment indefinitely, as I've also have gotten harassment from users on soyjak.party for simply opening up a post within the talk page for the article. Closedsrc (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- I mean I doubt that has anything to do with it. Kiwi Farms has a lot of coverage. The answer why soyjak.party has no coverage is more that it is an alt imageboard that has an indecipherable lexicon to outsiders and hasn't done much that impacts spaces outside the very online.
- And we do not have a policy of censorship (outside of limited BLP matters), in fact we have the reverse, WP:NOTCENSORED. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'd like to add that soyjak-derived memes that have gained popularity online have often had all of the website's internal lingo purged from them. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 00:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: Reading through all of the arguments here and the well-reasoned nom by PARAKANYAA as well as the talk page I don't think there are undiscovered sources waiting to be added and I don't think the sources present support the page as is especially with the sketchy status of the PirateWires source in this case. Moritoriko (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete the article, there aren't enough reliable sources to make a good article. TIHRTY treeeeut 15:04, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: No significant coverage, users of the site were involved in 5 ANI threads in the last 30 days. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 08:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per the nom, and everyone else. There's no significant coverage here, and this article has been a magnet for WP:NAZIS generating ANI threads. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: These guys really don't deserve to be platformed off of Soyjak Party. Wikipedia is an inclusive website, regardless of sex, age, sexuality, place of origin, etc. Soyjak Party is not that. --Naturalkilla76 (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with your comment, but I don't agree with this nom. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 22:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- For editor conduct yes, for article subjects no. Are there any other policy based arguments you could provide? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Naturalkilla76 This is not a reason for deletion, as stated, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored, and a deletion needs to be supported by actually policies. – LuniZunie(talk) 23:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; the article is built almost entirely off of a single source. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 15:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Insufficient SIGCOV and a strong magnet to violate WP:NQP. Clearly an WP:ATTACK article. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy There's no LGBTPhobia or any attack on article. Where's is the part that the article is clearly [[[WP:ATTACK]]? Wikipedia is not censored per: WP:NOTCENSORED. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 17:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.